Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here.

[Mystic]

. Not to battle, and argue over the points. Not that you do that, 

I do that. 

But this complaint/whining is heard. You watch from now on the dialogues are going to get better.

People obviously see this is not the way to go about it.  Theists and Atheists alike, we acting like clowns on these forums when we can be doing so much better with our reason. I included in this clown acting.

Something has to change.

[Edwardo Piet]

Clowns are shit. But I like silliness. I haz plenty of time spendingz talking of mayo. That doesn't make me a clown though, it makes me a silly turtle.

[The Grand Nudger]

. Not to battle, and argue over the points. Not that you do that, 

I do that. 

But this complaint/whining is heard. You watch from now on the dialogues are going to get better.

People obviously see this is not the way to go about it.  Theists and Atheists alike, we acting like clowns on these forums when we can be doing so much better with our reason. I included in this clown acting.

Something has to change.

Stop negotiating, or implicating others with your own admissions.  If you've been acting like a clown, fine.   Own it, and stop pointing fingers around on your way down.

[Mystic]

Your argument was this:

Atheists use their reason to accept all sorts of reasonable arguments for other things.
They don't accept it for God, it must be because those arguments don't work in the case of God (ie. they aren't reasonable)

This is incorrect.

The other existential claims I accept I do so based on demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic.

The arguments for existence of a god does not meet the above criteria. 

If the existence of a god met the criteria that I use for other claims, I would accept the claim.

I can't refute what you said. However I think you misunderstood by "they", I meant the arguments. Basically the arguments that are use to argue for God are not reasonable. To infer that due Atheists accepting reason in other places means they would accept it if it proved God...by analogy one can say if all reasons to dismiss things like FSM or invisible dragon can be used to dismiss God....they should all dismiss God by the same reasons.

So it seems neither of us accept this line of reasoning.

[Edwardo Piet]

Own it, and stop pointing fingers around on your way down.

MK should know that the only thing on the way down is turtles... all the way down.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, basically, Mystic.....you'd like to imply that atheists are liars/inconsistent in a vacuum.  I know, I know...fucking demons and heart curses...you need to make room for that clause to accommodate your beliefs.

If you had a rational argument for the existence of your god I'd have no -choice- in whether or not I accepted it. That's not an ability I possess. I still wouldn't be a muslim, but I'd no longer be an atheist.

[Edwardo Piet]

Just because I iz a talking turtle doesn't mean I haz demons.

Because I iz talking turtle that makes mayo AND denys the existence of the Turtle-Lord: THAT'S why I haz demons.

[Rhondazvous]

Theist: I want to present my arguments for god’s existence.
Atheist: go ahead
Theist: Well my main argument is that god has to exist because I would hate to live in a world where he doesn’t.
Atheist: I don’t call that an argument.
Theist: You shit faced infidel. I presented a sound argument, but you’re too stupid to grasp it.
Atheist: I don’t call that an argument either.
Theist: Well, my argument is that if god didn’t exist, I’d have no basis for morality.
Atheist: in other words you believe in beef because without meat you’d have no basis for being a vegetarian. I see.
Theist. No, that’s not what I said. God has to exist.
Atheist: I’ve heard all your arguments. I don’t accept them. Are you going to come up with something new that I might accept.
Theist. I don’t need to come up with anything new. You’re just too evil and stubborn to understand what I’ve already said.
Atheist: Okay, you win.
Theist: I won? Then you believe in god?
Atheist: No, but you win the dialogue, nothing else.

[*Deidre*]

. Not to battle, and argue over the points. Not that you do that, 

I do that. 

But this complaint/whining is heard. You watch from now on the dialogues are going to get better.

People obviously see this is not the way to go about it.  Theists and Atheists alike, we acting like clowns on these forums when we can be doing so much better with our reason. I included in this clown acting.

Something has to change.

Interestingly, I find myself debating Christians more than atheists, now that I came back to faith. lol What?? 

Thing is to not take ourselves ever too seriously. Life is short, and being happy is a state of mind, and if your faith brings you happiness, no one can take that from you.

[Jenny A]

I don't have objective value.  That my thought processes exist is objectively verifiable.  You are reading proof of their existence in the form of out put.  But they have no objective value.  Objective value is an oxymoron.  Value, unlike weight is inherently subjective.

Do you have subjective value? If so, how so? Why do you believe in your perception of value of yourself? If not, then you do think it's irrational to value oneself?

I believe I have an objective value and subjective value. My parents have a subjective value of me. I have a subjective value of me. But I don't believe subjective value of a person is possible without a belief that they have objective value.

So to me, personally, I believe that would be a contradiction in terms. The only way to have subjective value  of yourself is to believe there is an objective value of yourself.

Of course I value myself. I hope I have value to others. That doesn't mean I think I have value in any objective cosmic sense. Nothing does. Value is placed on a thing by someone. My value varies we the beholder. It is a preference. With the exception of sociopaths people place value on other people. The value we place on things including people, tells you about us, not the things not the things we value.

Gold can be used as a medium of exchange, or to make things people like to look at, or for industrial purposes. The value we place on it is a function of human desires not the gold itself. The gold has objective properties (mass, conductiviy, melting point, reactivuty, etc.) but it does not have objective value. It's value varies from person to person and culture to culture. Value is subjective.

The existence of people or gold, is an objective reality, just as it is an objective reality that there were once no people. Like gold, you can say other objective things about people. How much we weigh, how long we live, our color, how are bodies function, how we can affect our environment, that we have emotions, and thoughts. But those are not value. Our value is entirely subjective.